General (scope, time limits)
Applications for international protection shall be examined and decided upon by PMM.[1] “Migration experts” from the Department of International Protection oversee the processing of applications at Headquarters and the PDMM.
A decision shall be issued within 6 months from registration.[2] However, this is not a binding time limit, as the law states that in case an application cannot be decided within 6 months the applicant will be notified. In practice, severe delays are observed in the completion of the international protection procedure, against the backdrop of capacity shortages at the PDMM. Applicants may wait for years for a decision to be taken on their application.[3]
There are no statistics on the number of decisions taken by PMM in 2017-2022. The latest available statistics referred to 30,380 decisions taken in 2016, of which 23,886 were positive and 6,494 were negative.[4]
IP applications of people holding refugee status from UNHCR and living in TR for 10 years and 12 years were kept on shelves but as of 2021, it was observed that PMM have been rejecting those applications in mass. Stakeholders believe that PDMM’s staff does not have the capacity to deal with international protection applications. For the last 1-2 years, international protection applications have been taken off the shelves and negative decisions have been made.[5]
Overall, practice on the examination and the decision-making at first instance is not uniform across provinces. The quality of interviews, the assessment of evidence, the lack of identification of vulnerable groups, the lack of training of migration experts as well as the lack of available interpreters have been reported as particular concerns.
Prioritised examination and fast-track processing
Persons with special needs shall be “given priority with respect to all rights and proceedings” pertaining to the adjudication of international protection applications.[6] In practice, despite the severe obstacles to Registration, persons with special needs such as women in advanced stages of pregnancy, persons with acute health needs, or unaccompanied children have benefitted from prioritisation in the registration of international protection applications at the PDMM.[7] Detailed figures on the number of persons concerned by said prioritisation are not available, however.
Personal interview
Under the regular procedure, the competent PDMM is required to carry out a personal interview with applicants within 30 days from registration,[8] to be conducted by personnel trained in fields such as refugee law, human rights and country of origin information.[9]
Applicants are notified of the assigned place and date of their personal interview at the end of their Registration interview.[10] If the interview cannot be held on the assigned date, a new interview date must be issued.[11] The postponed interview date must be no earlier than 10 days after the previous appointment date. Additional interviews may be held with the applicant if deemed necessary.[12] In practice, however, applicants face significant delays, often up to several months, before a first interview.
The applicant may be accompanied in the interview by: (a) family members; (b) their lawyer as an observer; (c) an interpreter; (ç) a psychologist, pedagogue, child expert or social worker; and (d) the legal representative where the applicant is a child.[13]
Audio or video records of the interviews may be taken, though in current practice no such audio or video records are used.
Generally, practice is still not uniform across provinces and the quality of the procedure depends on the case officer handling the application.[14] There are two decision centres located in İstanbul and Ankara. According to civil society and lawyers, however, the quality of interviews remains low in most PDMM. In Agri, a person who worked in Afghanistan for an international organisation and sought international protection was denied international protection. The applicant then appealed against this decision. According to the Erzurum 1st Administrative Court, PDMM should have conducted a more effective personal interview. PDMM abided by the decision and invited the applicant for a second personal interview. Her lawyer was present during the interview, and she was granted international protection.[15]
Overall, in 2022 stakeholders reported that refugee status determination (RSD) interviews were often not carried out under proper conditions, vulnerabilities were often not considered and Afghans’ applications for international protection seemed to be rejected by default.[16] For instance, there had been no positive RSD decisions by early 2022 from the Gaziantep region. The quality of RSD interviews decreased dramatically after the takeover by PMM. During the RSD interview of an Iranian applicant by the Manisa PDMM, her lawyer was present and observed that the quality of the interviews was questionable and the applicant refused to give her statement through the interpreter after a while. Problems continued in 2022.[17]
Interviews do not depend on credible country of origin information (COI). In 2022, some progresses were reported regarding interviews with LGBTIQ+ and HIV+ individuals. The UNHCR provided intensive trainings to PMM’s protection officers, which led to this improvement. However, the method for rejecting applications and the legal justifications for rejected decisions were deemed rather superficial.[18]
In 2022, all stakeholders reported the biggest obstacle was access to the procedure (see Registration of the asylum application).
Interpretation
Applicants shall be provided with interpretation services, if they so request, for the purpose of personal interviews carried out at application, registration and personal interview stages.[19]
Regarding the quality of interpretation during personal interviews, the personal interview shall be postponed to a later date where the interview official identifies that the applicant and the interpreter have difficulties understanding each other.[20] The interviewer shall inform the interpreter of the scope of the interview and the rules to be complied with.[21]
In 2022, no concerns were reported on the adequate numbers of interpreters however there are shortages or a lack of interpreters in specific rare languages spoken by applicants. Moreover, the number of women interpreters remains very low.[22] Lack of sensitivity to and censorship of applicants’ statements have also been reported in claims relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.[23] Lawyers have expressed concerns about the quality of interpretation in removal centres including in important interviews on return.[24] Similar issues persisted in 2022.[25]
Report
The interviewing official shall use a standard template called “International Protection Interview Form” to record the applicant’s statements during the personal interview. This form is a template consisting of a predefined set of questions that must be presented to the applicant covering basic biographic information, profile indicators, reasons for flight and fear of return, among other.[26]
The interview official is required to read out the contents of the International Protection Interview Form to the applicant at the end of the interview and ask the applicant whether they are any aspects of the transcript that he or she wants to correct and whether there is any additional information he or she would like to present.[27]
An interview report shall then be drafted at the end of the interview, and the applicant shall sign it and receive a copy.[28] In practice, applicants are not given a copy of the interview report.[29]
Appeal
Decisions must be communicated in writing.[30] Notifications of negative decisions should lay down the objective reasons and legal grounds of the decision. Where an applicant is not represented by a lawyer, he or she shall also be informed about the legal consequences of the decision and applicable appeal mechanisms. Furthermore, the notification of all decisions within the scope of the LFIP shall give due consideration to the fact that the “persons concerned are foreign nationals” and a separate directive shall be issued by PMM to provide specifics on modalities of written notifications.[31] In practice, the decisions are in Turkish but translated by the PDMM into the language of applicants.[32]
The LFIP provides two separate remedies against negative decisions issued in the regular procedure, one optional administrative appeal remedy and one judicial appeal remedy. When faced with a negative status decision by PMM under the regular procedure, applicants may:[33]
- File an administrative appeal with the International Protection Evaluation Commissions (IPEC) within 10 days, and file an onward judicial appeal with the competent Administrative Court only if the initial administrative appeal is unsuccessful; or
- Directly file a judicial appeal with the competent Administrative Court within 30 days.
In practice, the latter remedy is applied. Both types of appeals have automatic suspensive effect. Under the LFIP, applicants shall generally be allowed to remain in Türkiye until the full exhaustion of remedies provided by LFIP against negative decisions,[34] subject to the derogation discussed in Removal and Refoulement.
There was a pilot project in 2020 to conduct e-Hearings, but it did not involve peace courts or administrative courts.
Court cases were delayed in March and April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and legal statutory time limits were suspended from March to June 2020. In 2021, there were also delays. In İzmir, trial periods were extended in administrative law cases. Whereas previously a decision had been taken in 7-8 months, in 2021/ early 2022 one stakeholder had files pending for more than one year, without a hearing date.
Unregistered refugees still had difficulties entering public institutions due to the HES code application in 2021. They could not enter the courthouse and had to wait outside for their lawyers.
In 20201 legal aid offices carried out assignment processes smoothly, with no exceptions or discrimination including against applicants having YTS (foreign terrorist fighter) codes. In criminal courts, the compulsory defense mechanism does not function as well. When the person is deprived of this right, the court should remind them of their right to have a defense lawyer. Some foreign citizens’ cases have been settled without the assistance of a lawyer.
The presiding judges of the Ankara 1st Administrative Court have changed, and the new judges no longer accept the assignment letters of legal aid lawyers – they require a power of attorney instead. This application started in October 2021. They said that the legal aid assignment letter was only internal correspondence so the acceptance of the assignment letter was illegal.
Administrative appeal before IPEC
Negative decisions in the regular procedure may be appealed at the IPEC within 10 days of the written notification of the decision.[35]
IPEC are envisioned as a specialised administrative appeal body and serve under the coordination of the PMM Headquarters.[36] One or more IPEC may be created under the auspices of either the PMM Headquarters and/or PDMM.
Each Committee will be chaired by a PMM representative, and will feature a second PMM official as well as representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. UNHCR may be invited to assign a representative in observer status.[37] PMM personnel assigned to the IPEC will be appointed for a period of 2 years whereas the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs representatives will be appointed for one-year term. IPEC are envisioned to serve as full-time specialised asylum tribunals as members will not be assigned any additional duties.[38]
IPEC are competent to evaluate and decide appeals against the following decisions:[39]
- Negative status decisions issued in the regular procedure;
- Other negative decisions on applicants and international protection status holders, not pertaining to international protection status matters as such;
- Cessation or Withdrawal of status decisions.
On the other hand, decisions on administrative detention, inadmissibility decisions and decisions in the accelerated procedure are outside the competence of IPEC.
IPEC review the initial PMM decision on both facts and law.[40] The Commission may request the full case file from PMM if deemed necessary. IPEC are authorised to interview applicants if they deem necessary or instruct the competent PDMM to hold an additional interview with the applicant.
Whereas the LFIP does not lay down a time limit for the finalisation of appeals filed with IPEC, Article 100(3) RFIP provides that the Commission shall decide on the appeal application and notify the applicant within 15 days of receiving the application, which may be extended by 5 more days.
IPEC do not have the authority to directly overturn PMM decisions. The Commission may either reject the appeal, and thereby endorse the initial PMM decision, or it may request PMM to reconsider its initial decision in terms of facts and law.[41] Therefore, decisions by IPEC cannot be considered as binding on PMM. If PMM chooses to stick to its initial negative decision, the applicant will have to file a consequent judicial appeal with the competent Administrative Court.
It seems from lawyers and experts in the field that the IPEC is not an effective administrative appeal mechanism and applicants prefer directly filing a judicial appeal before the Administrative Court.
Judicial appeal at the Administrative Court
Negative decisions in the regular procedure may also be directly appealed at the competent Administrative Courts within 30 days of the written notification of the decision.[42] There is no requirement for applicants to first exhaust the IPEC step before they file a judicial appeal against a negative decision. However, if they choose to file an administrative appeal with IPEC first, depending on the outcome of the IPEC appeal, they can appeal a negative IPEC decision onward at the Administrative Court.
Under Turkish law, Administrative Court challenges have to be filed in the area where the act or decision in question was taken.[43]
While the LFIP has not created specialised asylum and immigration courts, Türkiye’s High Council of Judges and Prosecutors shall determine which Administrative Court chamber in any given local jurisdiction shall be responsible for appeals brought on administrative acts and decisions within the scope of the LFIP.[44] In 2015, the Council passed a decision to designate the 1st Chamber of each Administrative Court as responsible for appeals against decisions within the scope of LFIP. These competent chambers continue to deal with all types of caseloads and do not exclusively serve as asylum and immigration appeal bodies. Concerns about the quality of decisions persisted in 2022.[45]
There are no time limits imposed on Administrative Courts to decide on appeals against negative decisions in the regular procedure. Administrative Court applications are normally adjudicated in a written procedure. In theory, an applicant can request a hearing, which may or may not be granted by the competent court.
Administrative Courts are mandated to review the PDMM decision on both facts and law. If the application is successful, the judgment annuls the PDMM decision, but does not overturn it as such. According to administrative law, the first instance authority is obligated to either revise the challenged act or decision or appeal the Administrative Court decision to Council of State (Danıştay) within 30 days.[46]
The evidence threshold set by administrative courts has remained excessively high, thereby reducing applicants’ chances of obtaining a favourable ruling on their appeals for international protection registration. Moreover, the onward appeal has been ineffective for a long time.[47]
Case law of the Administrative Courts confirm that there are persisting gaps in the quality of first instance decisions. The Administrative Courts of Ankara, İstanbul and Izmir are regarded as the most expert courts in refugee law issues. Both courts quite diligently examine whether the negative decisions on international protection application are in line with the non-refoulement principle and have annulled decisions based on an incorrect assessment on the part of the PMM.
However, starting from 2021, it became evident that a more ‘statist’ approach has dominated the administrative court in Ankara. This has led to a less favourable attitude to granting ‘privileges’ to foreign citizens and is probably linked to rising xenophobia in the country. In Istanbul, some stakeholders also observed that tolerance towards refugees, including judges’ attitudes towards their clients, shifted substantially in 2022. In a legal aid case involving an African applicant’s appeal case on international protection, the lawyer requested the appointment of an interpreter through the legal aid budget. However, her request was denied, and the judge ordered the applicant to find an interpreter and pay the fees out of his own pocket.[48]
In early 2022, the Ordu Administrative Court rejected the appeal of a person who converted his religion. It can be appealed, but Ordu is linked to the Samsun Regional Administrative Court, and Samsun Regional Administrative Court generally gives out negative decisions. It is not possible to file a complaint to the Constitutional Court or the ECtHR until a deportation decision is issued. In practice, while waiting for this deportation decision, the foreign identity number of the applicant is deactivated. This means that people cannot access basic services such as health and education. When it is appealed against the rejection of the international protection application, it is activated again. However, it is deactivated once the applicant receive a final rejection decision about the international protection application. In addition, if a deportation decision is issued, the applicant’s foreign identity number is not reactivated. Partly for this reason, some foreign citizens feel pressure to apply for voluntary return and leave Türkiye. Putting barriers to access fundamental rights and services is used as a tool of oppression.[49]
The Erzurum 1st Administrative Court performed poorly in 2022. One of its rare positive decisions involved an Afghan applicant who was a prosecutor in Afghanistan applied for international protection but it was denied by PDMM. He filed an appeal with the Erzurum 1st Administrative Court. The court ruled in favour of the applicant, concluding he could not be deported to Afghanistan due to the risk of persecution he would face.[50]
Judges have little legal/practical knowledge of international protection procedures. Sometimes they request a briefing from PDMM about the country of origin to decide. Since most judges do not speak English, they cannot access the country-of-origin information.[51]
Onward appeal before the Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State
Applicants have the possibility of filing an onward appeal with the Regional Administrative Court and then the Council of State within 30 days.[52] There is no time limit for the Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State to decide on the application. The Council of State decision on the onward appeal will constitute the final decision on the application since it cannot be further appealed.
It is difficult to establish the exact number of refused and accepted decisions from the Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State.
Legal assistance
All applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection have a right to be represented by an attorney in relation to “all acts and decisions within the scope of the International Protection section of the LFIP”, under the condition that they pay for the lawyer’s fees themselves.[53]
In principle, a notarised power of attorney is required for a lawyer to represent the asylum seeker,[54] unless the applicant benefits from the Legal Aid Service, in which case the appointment letter is deemed sufficient to represent the applicant.
As per the Union of Notaries Circular 2016/3 of 2 March 2016, the International Protection Applicant Identification Card is included in the list of documents accepted by public notaries. Still, the power of attorney requirement entails additional financial costs, which vary depending on location, and poses substantial obstacles to applicants in detention.
Legal assistance at first instance
Lawyers and legal representatives can accompany applicants during the personal interview.[55] Furthermore, lawyers and legal representatives are guaranteed access to all documents in the file and may obtain copies, with the exception of documents pertaining to national security, protection of public order and prevention of crime.[56] International protection applicants and status holders are also free to seek counselling services provided by NGOs.[57]
These safeguards, however, are inscribed as “freedoms” as opposed to “entitlements” that would create a positive obligation on the state to secure the actual supply and provision of legal counselling, assistance and representation services. In some cases, not necessarily linked to the international protection procedure, PMM has prohibited lawyers from providing oral counselling to clients in the absence of a power of attorney.
The actual supply of free of charge and quality legal assistance to asylum seekers in Türkiye remains limited mainly due to practical obstacles. That said, EU funding under the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye was directed to UNHCR and the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (UTBA) for a 5 million EUR project launched in January 2018 for the provision legal aid to asylum seekers and refugees in 33 provinces.[58] The bar associations of the 33 provinces covered by the legal aid project have set up separate lists of lawyers specially trained in refugee law to deal inter alia with international protection procedures. Only specially trained lawyers are eligible for taking on a case,[59] although several stakeholders reported in 2022 that trainings were still insufficient and run for a very high number of lawyers at once. This caused some concerns about the quality of the training and the impact of lawyers less well-trained working on cases.[60] As of 2022, five legal clinics have been operated in Kilis, Gaziantep, Hatay, Şanlıurfa and Malatya.[61]
Cases can concern deportation, international or temporary protection procedures, and civil law disputes. Labour and criminal proceedings are excluded.[62] As most deportation decisions are based on LFIP 54. bd-k, for public security, public health, and links to terrorist organizations, most deportation assignments do not fall within this project’s scope. The Gaziantep Bar Association, for instance, only accepts divorce and residence permit cases, and if UTBA project rejects a lawyer’s appointment, the legal aid office also rejects paying for the lawyer’s fee. Stakeholders interpreted this shift in practise as a shift in attitude towards refugees.[63] It is observed that in the provinces that are within the scope of UTBA projects, the bar associations at times tend to limit the legal aid with the projects, which can be restrictive for access to legal assistance because UTBA projects may have criteria that are different from those under legal aid legislation.[64] In 2022, it was reported that the Istanbul legal aid centre denies certain requests.[65] However, legal Aid of the Izmir Bar Association has consistently assisted refugees. According to shared data, legal aid services provided for 306 deportation cases, 209 administrative detention cases, and 42 appeals of international protection decisions in 2022.[66]
Due to the lack of an increase in legal fees, the UTBA project ceased in September 2022, and the Union of Turkish Bar Associations stopped appointing lawyers. In September 2022, legal aid in Istanbul also stopped to provide legal aid service to refugees. This caused a huge crisis in Istanbul and affected refugees. The UTBA project was reactivated in February 2023, but not in the same manner as in the past. This is because TBB wants local bar associations to financially assist refugee cases through their own budgets, independent of the project.[67]
Overall, the project has been considered as quite useful. Benefits have included an increase in refugees’ access to justice and information, as indicated by information materials on display in removal facilities targeted by the project but not in others, which are not project cities. Some concerns were voiced because lawyers were not appointed promptly enough in circumstances that are time-sensitive such as deportation cases. In addition, legal aid budgets are determined according to the number of lawyers and citizens in the province, but non-citizens such as applications for international protection are not considered when the budget is planned. In 2022, lawyers reported their concern as to whether those who are imposed a security code are allowed to get legal assistance under the scheme.[68]
Requests for legal aid can be issued from an asylum seeker, a third party or a Removal Centre. Civil society organisations are the main source of referrals for legal aid with direct applications from refugees and migrants but even this group remains low. This has provided the impetus for the legal aid scheme to extend to persons seeking international protection, and in some cases, for bar associations to take additional steps in contributing to refugee protection in Türkiye.[69] In practice, however, not all bar associations accept referrals from NGOs or third parties.[70] Bar associations allocate cases through an automated system and decide whether they are eligible for legal aid under the project, otherwise it is channelled into their general Legal Aid Scheme (Adli Yardım) discussed below.[71] In addition, not all the cases referred by NGOs are eligible for legal aid.[72] One practical issue concerns asylum seekers who have been issued a security code e.g. “G87” or “G89”, as the aforementioned legal aid project funding does not cover them and it is up to bar associations to cover costs with additional funding, if they can.[73] Financially it was seen as very beneficial as lawyers receive payment within one month although one stakeholder thought a lot of documentation was required.[74]
The project was seen as particularly effective in provinces where refugees are concentrated but cannot afford to pay for legal fees and court costs out of their pockets. While the bar associations in the metropolitan areas can provide this service through their legal aid budgets, unfortunately, the bar associations in small cities have not been able to offer well-functioning legal aid to refugees. Thanks to the UTBA project, they can now.
As from 2018, The UTBA project has been providing a telephone interpretation service in four languages (Arabic, Persian, Dari, and French) for court officials and lawyers offering legal help to Syrian and non-Syrian applicants. In 2022, stakeholders indicated that previous issues with accessing this service from removal centres had been resolved, and that this service could be used in Removal Centres where lawyers have a fixed line.[75]
Beyond the involvement of bar associations, there are several NGOs providing limited legal information and assistance services, but they do not have the resources and operational capacity to establish a significant level of field presence throughout the country. Considering the size of the asylum-seeking population and Türkiye’s geographical dispersal policy (see Freedom of Movement), asylum seekers in most locations do not have access to specialised legal counselling and assistance services by NGOs at first instance. NGOs providing legal assistance and representation to asylum seekers include SGDD-ASAM, Support to Life, International Refugee Rights Association (Uluslararası Mülteci Hakları Derneği), Refugee Rights Türkiye (Mülteci Hakları Merkezi), Mülteci-Der, IKGV and Kirmizi Semsiye Cinsel Saglik ve Insan Haklari Association among others. In the absence of any dedicated state funds to fund legal assistance services by NGOs to asylum seekers, the limited amount of project-based external funding available to NGO providers, insufficient prioritisation of direct legal service activities in donor programmes and stringent bureaucratic requirements of project-based funding make it very difficult for specialised NGO legal service providers to emerge and prosper.
NGOs have a vital role to help the functioning of the process more generally. The Bar does not have the sufficient knowledge to identify the needs of refugees, but NGOs do – and they do this on behalf of the Bar Associations. NGOs identify these needs with the help of their translators, protection experts, social workers, and legal advisors and transmit this knowledge to bar associations. In addition, after the Bar Association appoints a lawyer, NGOs and their in-house lawyers follow up on the case and provide information to the appointed legal aid lawyer throughout the trial process.
Legal assistance in judicial appeals
Persons who do not have the financial means to pay a lawyer are to be referred to the state-funded Legal Aid Scheme (Adli Yardım) for judicial appeals in the international protection procedure.[76] The LFIP simply refers to the existing Legal Aid Scheme which in theory should be accessible to all economically disadvantaged persons in Türkiye, including foreign nationals.
The Legal Aid Scheme is implemented by the bar associations in each province subject to “means” and “merits” criteria, at the discretion of each bar association board. The assessment of “means” varies across bar associations.
One practical impediment to more active involvement by bar associations is the overall scarcity of legal aid funding made available to bar associations from the state budget. While technically all types of “lawyer services” fall within the scope of legal aid as per Türkiye’s Law on Attorneys, in practice the Legal Aid Scheme in Türkiye provides free legal representation to beneficiaries in relation with judicial proceedings as distinct from legal counselling and consultancy services short of court proceedings. This is indeed a principle reaffirmed by Article 81(2) LFIP, which provides that international protection applicants may seek state-funded legal aid in connection with judicial appeals pertaining to any acts and decisions within the international protection procedure. In Istanbul, the suspension of the UTBA project in September 2022 had a direct impact on refugee legal aid services. In April 2023, some stakeholders reported that the legal aid service is less effective than in the past.[77]
The costs associated with bringing a case before an Administrative Court in Türkiye include notary fees for the power of attorney, sanctioned translations of identity documents, court application and other judicial fees and postal fees. Since the Legal Aid Scheme only covers a modest attorney fee, applicants are required to cover these costs from their own resources. Although it is possible to request a waiver of these costs from the court, judges have wide discretion on whether to grant such exemptions and in some cases decline the request without providing any substantial reason.[78]
The level of financial compensation afforded to lawyers within the state-funded Legal Aid Scheme is modest and is typically aimed to attract young lawyers at the early stages of their professional careers. The payments to legal aid lawyers are made on the basis of the type of legal action undertaken as opposed to hours spent on the case. As a result, there are insufficient incentives for legal aid lawyers to dedicate generous amounts of time and effort into asylum cases. That said, the aforementioned legal aid project implemented by UNHCR and the Union of Turkish Bar Associations provides targeted funding to 18 bar associations for international and temporary protection-related cases.
[1] Article 78 LFIP.
[2] Article 78(1) LFIP.
[3] Information provided by various stakeholders, May-June 2023.
[4] PMM, Annual Migration Report 2016, available in Turkish at: https://bit.ly/2TQdqU4, 74-75.
[5] Information provided by stakeholders, May-June 2023.
[6] Article 67 LFIP.
[7] Information provided by a stakeholder, February 2019.
[8] Article 75(1) LFIP.
[9] Article 81(2) RFIP.
[10] Article 69(5) LFIP.
[11] Article 75(4) LFIP.
[12] Article 75(5) LFIP.
[13] Article 82(1) RFIP.
[14] Information provided by various stakeholders, May-June 2023.
[15] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[16] Information provided by various stakeholders, May 2023.
[17] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[18] Information provided by a stakeholder, June 2023.
[19] Article 70(2) LFIP.
[20] Article 86(2) RFIP.
[21] Article 83(3) RFIP.
[22] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[23] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[24] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[25] Information provided by various stakeholders, May-June 2023.
[26] Article 81(5) RFIP.
[27] Article 86(3) RFIP.
[28] Article 75(6) LFIP.
[29] Information provided by a stakeholder, February 2019 and March 2021.
[30] Article 78(6) LFIP.
[31] Article 100 LFIP.
[32] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[33] Article 80 LFIP.
[34] Article 80(1)(e) LFIP.
[35] Article 80(1)(a) LFIP.
[36] Article 134 RFIP.
[37] Article 145 RFIP.
[38] Article 146 and 147 RFIP.
[39] Article 149 RFIP.
[40] Article 100(1) RFIP.
[41] Article 100(2) RFIP.
[42] Article 80(1)(ç) LFIP.
[43] In Türkiye, not all provinces have Administrative Courts in location. Smaller provinces which do not have an Administrative Court in location are attended by courts operating under the auspices of the nearest Administrative Court. The Administrative Court of each province is divided into several chambers which are designated with numbers.
[44] Article 101 LFIP.
[45] ECRE AIDA Database, ‘Türkiye: Judicial Review of Administrative Detention Decisions’, 28 May 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/3exWd8t.
[46] Article 28 Law on Administrative Court Procedures.
[47] Information provided by a stakeholder, April 2023.
[48] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[49] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[50] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[51] Information from a stakeholder, May 2022.
[52] Article 28 Law on Administrative Court Procedures.
[53] Article 81(1) LFIP.
[54] On this point, see Constitutional Court, Decision 2015/87, 8 October 2015, available in Turkish at: http://bit.ly/2E3xSIn.
[55] Article 75(3) LFIP.
[56] Article 94(2) LFIP.
[57] Article 81(3) LFIP.
[58] Coucil of Europe, ‘Joint Project On Strengthening The Capacity Of Bar Associations And Lawyers On European Human Rights Standards’, 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/44K1bZ6.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Information from various stakeholders, May-June 2023.
[61] Coucil of Europe, ‘Joint Project On Strengthening The Capacity Of Bar Associations And Lawyers On European Human Rights Standards’, 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/44K1bZ6.
[62] https://ihem.barobirlik.org.tr/en
[63] Information provided by a stakeholder, June 2023.
[64] Information provided by a stakeholder, June 2023.
[65] Information provided by a stakeholder, April 2023.
[66] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[67] Information provided by a stakeholder, April 2023.
[68] Information provided by stakeholders, May 2023.
[69] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[72] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2023.
[73] Information provided by various stakeholder, May 2023.
[74] Information provided by a stakeholder, May 2022.
[75] Information provided by stakeholders, May 2023.
[76] Article 81(2) LFIP.
[77] Information provided by a stakeholder, April 2023.
[78] The Council of State ruled in one case that the right to request waiver of the costs should be reminded and examined by the Administrative Court in each case: Decision No 2016/1830, 31 March 2016.